In the greater scheme of life, the preservation and continuation of one’s culture is likely one of society’s ultimate end-goals. As children are raised, they are educated in features of their respective society and encouraged to continue the heritage as they grow. Unfortunately, learned hatred for other cultures is often mixed in within these teachings. It is this notion of learned hatred that lies at the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For more than two thousand years, the struggle for the territories that encompass Palestine and Israel has spilled over and resulted in armed conflict. No clearer was this issue brought to the forefront then when Israel proclaimed itself a state and began colonization efforts of Palestinian land. Ever since that fateful day in 1948, the struggle for the succession of two unique cultures has been stronger then it has for centuries. Throughout my semester-long project, I focused on this cultural struggle and dove deep into its history and being to try and understand the politics and emotions of the issues and comment on a peaceful way forward.
History
I strongly believe that it is impossible to move forward without truly understanding your past. As such, I spent the first few weeks with my blog developing a greater understanding of the history of the issue. Beginning with this BBC News Special Report, I delved deep into the early history of the issue. With information dating back as early as ancient and biblical times, it quickly became apparent that the struggle between the two cultures dates farther back then most care to acknowledge. For, while the lands were originally inhabited by a mostly Jewish population, the cities were entirely destroyed in the early 100’s and the Arab population conquered the remnants in the late 600’s. The history of the struggle picked up further with this PBS Publication. Offering a mostly neutral position to the modern-day struggles, the article portrays the various bouts of violence from both perspectives. Unsurprisingly, both sides contributed to many of the conflicts.
My journey into recent history continued with an investigation into the failed Camp David II peace talks. By researching this JMCC article and this NY Times article, I became distinctly aware of the staunch protectionism that both leaders portrayed in the failed peace talks. While many believe that it was the Palestinian Leader, Yasir Arafat, who was to blame for the failed exercise, it is important to note that Israel was not without blame itself. For, while Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak did cede concessions on many things, the failure to relinquish total control of East Jerusalem was an understandable non-starting point for Mr. Arafat. With the benefit of hindsight, it was no surprise to learn that these failed peace talks lead directly to the Second Intifada.
As a final journey through history, I researched the most recent outbreak of violence that occurred over the summer of 2014. Much like the many bouts of violence that preceded it, the 2014 conflict began as retaliatory violence from both sides. As stated by both this BBC News article and this Guardian article, small skirmishes related to the unsubstantiated recapture of freed Palestinian inmates, and an unrelated Palestinian killing of three Israeli troops, quickly blossomed into the 50 days of war.
Through this relatively brief look into history, the immensely fragile nature of the situation has become readily apparent. For as the circumstance of the situation finds itself doused in lighter fluid, all major actors surrounding it stand with lit matches in hand.
The Politics of it All
For many reasons, it is difficult to begin a conversation about the politics that surround the conflict. At the forefront of those reasons though, are the horrendous atrocities that were inflicted upon the Jewish people during World War II. Yet to move forward, and completely address the issues currently facing the two nations, we must acknowledge these atrocities, remember them so they never repeat themselves, and treat the Jewish people as any other culture of the world. In light of this, I moved forward with my research unabated.
Throughout my research into the history, the proposed solutions, and the current affairs, it was readily apparent that most all of the political leaders of both sides, both current and former, held a similar, realist, political perspective on globalization. For, at their core, the leaders of Palestine and Israel all put their strong state before anything else and focused on the might of their military and economy as they pushed for their respective beliefs and desires. This textbook definition of realism was evident throughout the peace talks mentioned earlier, as well as the discussions of plausible solutions. For example, in this BBC News article, in which Obama discusses his 2011 desire and support for a two-state solution, Netanyahu’s firm realist sentiments emerge through his resolute dismissal of the plan and his claims that it would be “indefensible.” Similarly, Abbas’s realist viewpoints are firmly recognized through his repeated attempts to have Palestine recognized as an official state in the eyes of the UN (an example of which is found in this Times of Israel article). And yet, as the issue continues to proceed with no clear answer in sight, hints of radicalism have begun to appear.
Traces of radicalism, or the disregard for most every culture save for your own, began floating to the surface in my research as I looked into the issue of apartheid. As I learned by reading this Electronic Intifada article, and this Times of Israel article, it quickly became apparent to me that the built up tension towards the Israelis was founded in their apartheid and colonialist actions imposed upon the Palestinians. While the two articles differ in the use of the apartheid label (it is important to note that both articles do acknowledge the fact that apartheid actions are taking place – the Times of Israel article simply chooses not to label them such due to the lack of direct intent), they both agree on the radical favoritism that is being enacted through colonization.
Chasing the radicalism rabbit down it’s proverbial hole, I then purposely sought out distinct examples of such behavior. Unfortunately, I didn’t have to search for very long. As evidenced by this Al Jazeera article which discusses the further criminalization of children’s stone throwing, and this Slate article that reveals the true racism of his reelection statements, the recent actions of Netanyahu and his greater government are downright sad and disturbing. And yet, the radicalism is not contained to one side. For, as was so poignantly described in this Atlantic article, Hamas’ true goal in life can be summed up as follows, “While Hamas is expert at getting innocent Palestinians killed, it has made clear that it would rather kill Jews.”
As the struggle between the two nations continues to degrade over time, so too does the political outlooks of the respective leaders. For what was once a mostly staunch realist perspective, has begun to deteriorate into radicalist tendencies.
Culture
Coming full circle now, I return to the notion of culture. At their core, the above feelings, political views, and actions of present and history are all founded in the roots of a society’s, and subsequently individual’s, cultural basis. As UNESCO states, “Culture is the whole complex of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features that characterizes a society or a group.” It should come as no surprise then, that the downward spiral of the situation continues and intensifies. For as mentioned earlier, the cultural teachings of both nations continue to intensify the bred, and mostly off-base, hatred towards one another. So in an attempt to further understand this seemingly simplistic, yet drastically diverse, issue, I take a step back and look to the greater theories of culture preservation found in the book Controversies in Globalization.
Tackling the question of whether globalization efforts should strive to preserve local culture or not, the book presents the writings of two leading professors who take opposing sides. Arguing for the preservation of unique cultures, Elsa Stamatopoulou argues for increased governmental efforts and measures to ensure the continued survival of all of the world’s indigenous cultures. Stamatopoulou calls for the inclusion of all cultures at the globalization policies table and further advocates for international efforts to ensure that such inclusion occurs. On the other side of the issue, Kwame Anthony Appiah argues against the concerted effort of preserving cultures. In his section, Appiah calls for reduced measures of preservation to enable the focus to shift towards the individual people and the current state of affairs.
Applying this rhetoric to the current struggle, I find it difficult not to correlate Stamatopoulou’s logic and the current state of cultural affairs. For as I have learned through the completion of this exercise, it is both Israel’s and Palestine’s unwavering desire to have their culture succeed (and furthermore, the international support and aide that both sides receive to further their respective interests) that has elevated what began so many years ago as a much more peaceful affair, to the current state of near-constant warfare. For if Appiah’s individualistic viewpoints on culture preservation were implemented, I strongly believe that the continual spread of mutual hatred would be diminished and we would find ourselves in a different state of affairs.
The Way Forward
Throughout the Arab Spring, Israel and Palestine have remained relatively isolated. As the nations surrounding them endured immense turmoil to overthrow corrupted regimes, Palestine and Israel remained locked in their own history of violence. While changes to aide packages, both military and financial, and tightened borders constituted the entirety of the nation’s actual involvement with the uprising, a deeper philosophical meaning may well be extracted. For while the Arab Spring has just begun for many nations, an argument could well be made that has Israel and Palestine’s conflict well into its own summer or fall rendition.
In the end, I’m afraid that the current state of cultural hatred leaves the situation at a point where no amount of boundary defining statehoods could surmise a peaceful solution. For as Benjamin Pogrund stated in this Times of Israel article, “You’re all lying, you’re all doing horrible things, and you’re all pointing the finger of blame at the other. And you’re all to blame. We’re all to blame.” So how is a solution to this ancient struggle found? I believe that a start to an answer is provided in the wise words of Kwame Appiah: “ . . . [it] starts by taking individuals – not nations, tribes, or ‘peoples’ – as the proper object of moral concern.”